THE FIRST MARXIST CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT IN HISTORY – PART II

This article is re-published from ‘Free Nations’ with kind permission by the author. Part I was published on UKIPDaily here.

QUANTITATIVE EASING – GOVERNMENT THEFT

After the financial collapse of 2008/2009 it was necessary for the people who had not caused the collapse to bail out the banks (and the Government) who had caused it. One of the many routes to that end was “quantitative easing” – or Government money printing on a grand scale. This resulted in negative interest rates and the decimation of the savings of the young (saving for a house) and the old (living off savings).

This has been one of the greatest thefts in the history of government. Like general inflation over many decades the transfer of wealth was never described, never put before Parliament and never made into law. When it comes to crushing the thrifty virtues of the “bourgeois” the corporatist State does just as well as a communist revolutionary.

The Rule of Law in Britain has been frittered away as fast as inflation has destroyed money.

PAY UP EVEN IF YOU CANNOT

You do not have to be rich in order to lose your income. You do not have to earn an income before you are taxed.

As the State became ever larger (and the people weaker) and politicians bought votes and corporate patronage with taxpayers money and caused economic failure and collapsing tax revenue, Government deficits and the National Debt grew as the State ran out of other peoples’ money.

Business Rates as we have seen kept going up even as the value of the properties they were taxing collapsed. Council tax kept going up in a recession despite the earnings of Council tax payers going down. As consumers struggled the Government raised VAT to a crippling 20% – so high that many small traders could not afford to raise their prices to cover the VAT. As incomes fell the Government decided to apply duties and indirect taxes which are payable regardless of income.

The Government learned how to increase work as a disguised way of raising taxes. In other words, instead of demanding higher taxes to pay for waste recycling they forced the householder to work instead – by sorting waste which used to be government business!

GOVERNMENT INFLATION RATE IS NOT YOURS

You can tell you are dealing with a fiddle when there appear TWO different inflation rates – the CPI and the RPI. The CPI was invented by the Government and has always been lower than the long-standing measure of RPI. The Government uses the higher RPI to set business rates and Council tax to increase its own income but then applies the lower CPI when it comes to raising pensions for the people! Lower than that you cannot sink. The Marxist Communist would delight in this State manipulation – providing of course he was

A recent ComRes poll of 550 Tory councillors showed that 75 percent believed schools should promote traditional models of family and marriage and 87 percent of councillors thought voters wanted the government to concentrate on Brexit. But at her party conference, Mrs May boasted it was her party which got same-sex marriage ‘on the statute book’ and she daily shows weakness in Brexit negotiations.

Homosexuals have been given the right to adopt children and babies, making the infants call a man “mummy” or a woman “daddy”. What a start in life for the innocent child.

When a devout Christian was forbidden to wear her small cross/pendant to work and took her case to the European Court the Conservative Government argued against her!!

“The civilised world has been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2000 years. Any country grounded in Judeo Christian values cannot be overthrown until those roots are cut….a long march through the institutions is necessary. Only then will power fall into our laps like a ripened fruit” Antonio Gramsci.

That fruit is ripening fast in Britain today.

Gramsci (1891 to 1937) was a theorist of cultural Marxism, a founder of the Italian Communist party and an enemy of what he saw as the “hegemonic culture” of the bourgeois morality which sustained capitalist societies.

When I was in Germany in the late 60s the Marxist “Frankfurt School” was in full swing, inciting their students to revolutionary fervour and plotting the “long march through the institutions”. Adorno, Horkheimer, Habermas were the big names, promoting political revolution but, equally important, seeking to undermine the Christian ethic and “bourgeois” society, the family and sexuality. They were joined by the British Philosopher Bertrand Russell (a great supporter of Stalin) advocating the revolutionary “educational process” before the age of 10. He said:

When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.

Today we have homosexual “education” even in primary schools and children are taught (as they were in Communist East Germany for instance) to spy on their parents: This from my friend Edward Spalton:

And from my next door neighbour, concerning the local primary school. He had his grandson to stay for the weekend and saw that the lad was looking in the dustbins.

“Why are you doing that?” he asked.
“To see if you’re recycling” was the answer.
“What if I’m not?” he asked
“Then I have to tell teacher”.

The manipulation of the State educational system was a high priority for the Marxist Frankfurt School:

“We will gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism” – Max Horkheimer.

The Frankfurt School intended to destroy the three pillars of western society; religion, culture and family values, which previously held society together, using cultural and sexual minorities instead of workers. Like the British Labour Party who suddenly realised that the British worker was too rich and too British to be revolutionary they decided to “scour the world” for new voters. Muslims were particularly prized as they are a fundamental challenge to Christianity. The aims of the Frankfurt School included:

The creation of racism offenses (well advanced in Conservative Britain with only white Britons apparently capable of racism while black racism in Africa goes unmentioned).

Continual change to create confusion (the end of nationhood, breaking up traditional families, breaking down national borders, mass immigration)

The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children (in the UK primary school children)

The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority (well advanced for many years)

Huge immigration to destroy identity, democratic cohesion and cultural conservatism (the Tory Party follows the socialist shibboleth that migration (extra 5m in 12 years) “has been good for us”)

The promotion of excessive drinking (and gambling as both Labour and Tory Governments – in return for big donations from the drink and gambling industries have done)

Emptying of churches (since the Church has adopted much of the “progressive agenda” it has done this without external aid!) replacing all belief with the “certainties of science” and Marxist atheism

Creating dependency on the state or state benefits (most then have an incentive to preserve the power of the State. Only the real Conservative Iain Duncan Smith has sought to roll this back, with some success)

Control and dumbing down of media (here the big corporate media has taken over with Government help and disastrously concentrated power and news control)

Running the State!

Stay tuned for parts 3 of this article, which will be published in UKIP Daily over the coming days.

About The Author

RA is the author of 7 books on political economy and the EU, an occasional adviser to Minsters and MPs since 1981, the founder of the Freenations website which is read in over 100 countries and a previous parliamentary candidate for the Referendum Party and UKIP. In 2000 he came within a few votes of winning the UKIP leadership election.

11 Comments

Really, nothing to argue with in Part 3. Theresa May and her neo-Marxist “Chancellor” are proving even worse than the traitors Camoron and Gideon.

> *Ian* Duncan Smith

My MP is *Iain* Duncan Smith.

Since the scare my hard-working election team delivered IDS in 2014-15, where in doorstep polling Churchill’s predecessor constituency (now, “Chingford & Woodford Green”) he and I were level-pegging, and indeed – per one local media outlet – I was temporarily ahead, IDS quickly re-discovered his firm Eurosceptic, Maastricht-Rebel credentials.

Since, he has done us proud!

A few months after GE2015, in the run-up to the Referendum, Iain had the principles to resign from the Cabinet in a row with the odious (my word, not his) Osborne and Cameron.

The cover story was just that – a cover story. The row was over the despicable duo – Osborne especially – and their attempted sabotage of the Referendum by misuse of government, and therefore taxpayer-funded, resources to fiddle the outcome, and the provision of misleading data via a Remainiac civil service and general scare-mongering and lying.

My rage against the likes of the shameless ***** Gina Miller is as nothing compared to my rage at four consecutive PMs – Bliar, McbRuin, Camoron and Treason May, with her – as Rodney Atkinson rightly calls it – first-ever Marxist Conservative government.

SHAME on those within UKIP who defected to the (Faux) Tories – especially shame on those greedy, self-serving jobhunters from London, whom I’m ashamed to have known and helped. From Hillingdon through Edmonton to Dagenham – you won’t be forgotten.

My dad grieved the passing of Russell (1970); I was 12. Russell’s paradox had revolutionised the heart of maths. When I first read about Russell’s teapot, it was as if I was reading me (“I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist.”)

Mr Atkinson has got his wires badly crossed about Russell. For example:
> When I was in Germany in the late 60s the Marxist “Frankfurt School” was in full swing
> .. They were joined by the British Philosopher Bertrand Russell

Ummm, Rodney, by the late 1960s Bertrand Russell was over 95 years of age, in failing health.

His ANTI-Stalinism had hardened; he was devoted to anti-nuclear-weaponry and anti-Vietnam War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell%27s_political_views
“Russell initially expressed great hope in “the Communist experiment.” However, when he visited the Soviet Union and met Vladimir Lenin in 1920, he was unimpressed with the system in place. On his return he wrote a critical tract, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism. He was “infinitely unhappy in this atmosphere – stifled by its utilitarianism, its indifference to love and beauty and the life of impulse.” Although critical of its implementation in Soviet Russia, he still believed “that Communism is necessary to the world.” He believed Lenin to be similar to a religious zealot, cold and possessing “no love of liberty.” … He was STRONGLY CRITICAL of Joseph STALIN’S REGIME, and referred to Marxism as a “system of dogma.” Between 1945 and 1947, together with A. J. Ayer and George Orwell, he contributed a series of articles to Polemic, a short-lived British “Magazine of Philosophy, Psychology, and Aesthetics” edited by the ex-Communist Humphrey Slater.”

Perhaps, Rodney, the Frankfurt School badly misrepresented Russell, and you swallowed that?

I trust it’s not news to you that Marxists and Commies tell (big) fibs.

I refuse to sort rubbish unless the council pays me 4 hrs @ minimum wage per week. So it all goes in one bin. Since no one has kicked in my door yet I assume recycling is the elaborate hoax I always thought it was.

I have tracked down the Bertrand Russell quote. It is abundantly clear from the full passage from which it is taken that Russell is attacking the sentiment in the quote not endorsing it. It is a chilling prediction, not a prescription. I can only demonstrate this by quoting the passage in full .. it repays reading .. it is taken from a book Russell published in 1952 entitled “The Impact of Science on Society”. Here is that full passage:

“I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. Mass psychology is, scientifically speaking, not a very advanced study, and so far its professors have not been in universities: they have been advertisers, politicians, and, above all, dictators. This study is immensely useful to practical men, whether they wish to become rich or to acquire the government. … Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called “education.” Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part. What is essential in mass psychology is the art of persuasion. ..

This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship. Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen. As yet there is only one country which has succeeded in creating this politician’s paradise.”

Given that Russell was writing this in 1952 the country referred to in the final sentence must be the Soviet Union. We now know that since then these methods of indoctrination foreseen by Russell have been successfully extended to nearly all Western countries – Russell’s prediction, not his prescription, has been vindicated.

I refrained from commenting on the first part of this article as it seemed harmless enough nonsense but the traducing of the name of Bertrand Russell, a hero of mine – albeit a flawed hero, requires rebuttal. The author makes two charges against Russell; first that he supported Stalin, and secondly, a selective quote which suggests Russell approves the sentiment in the quote whereas the context clearly shows he is attacking it. The quote is not a prescription but a chilling prediction.

I can only demonstrate the selectiveness of the quote by giving the full passage from which it is taken. This could take me over the 400 word post limit so I will have to make this a double post – apologies for this. In this post I will deal with the charge that Russell supported Stalin. In the second post I will deal with the selective and misleading quote.

So, first, in reply to the charge that Russell supported Stalin please see (below) the short piece by Russell “Why I am not a Communist”. It more than repays reading. Here is the link – unfortunately something has gone wrong with the copy and paste and there are numerous typos, but the clarity of Russell’s prose, the vigour of his arguments and the brilliance of his wit still shine through:

There is also this quote from Russell which I found on the internet and which has the ring of authenticity:

“I was doing a great deal of broadcasting for the various services of the BBC and they asked me to do one at the time of Stalin’s death. As I rejoiced mightily in that event, since I felt Stalin to be as wicked as one man could be and to be the root evil of most of the misery and terror in, and threatened by, Russia, I condemned him in my broadcast and rejoiced for the world in his departure from the scene. I forgot the BBC susceptibilities and respectabilities. My broadcast never went on the air.”
The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell (1967–1969) Ch. 14: Return to England, p. 511

Of all the significant people since, say the 1917 revolution, about which I know something, I think Stalin is the most despicable. So it is comforting to know Bertrand Russell and I are on the same page.

A few years ago I was reading a book on the history of Europe when I came to a page that stopped me in my tracks. It quoted an academic analysis of the number of people in the Soviet Union who, between the 1917 Revolution and the collapse of the Berlin Wall, had died as a consequence of the actions, or lack of action, of the state (ignoring died in warfare) and the figure was about 80,000,000!

Adapting Uncle Joe – “The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of 80,000,000 is a statistic.”

Rodney is very seriously in error in bringing in Russell in the manner he did.

I mean, just after WW2 ended, Russell was collaborating with none other than George Orwell – a more implacable foe of Stalin could hardly be imagined!

Orwell’s wartime work, ‘Animal Farm’, was a full-tilt attack on the Soviet revolution and the Stalinism that it led to. Russell was a qualified pacifist (cf. Gandhi, who declared he would not have used violence even against the Nazis) and detested Stalin’s methods.

Russell’s IQ has been a matter of speculation for decades. Given his subtlety of thought and his excellence in multiple disciplines, it is often assessed as being 180 or higher. To consider that someone of that calibre and in possession of all relevant facts would have any sympathy with the likes of a brutal, bullying assassin and thug like Stalin is worse than preposterous – it is plain idiotic.

Sorry, Rodney, back to the books.

My view of Communism is the same as Russell’s became. Communism is wonderful. Except for human nature. It works for ants and bees. When our nature evolves to (or back to) those of ants and bees, it will work for us too. But don’t expect that soon. There’s no evidence that human nature has changed one jot since history began, maybe ten or twenty thousand years ago. We are altruistic but our altruism is not of the sort that co-exists with or thrives under Communism.

This is a pretty good short description of what has been happening here both economically and culturally. The economic destruction has been underway for about a decade, whereas the destruction of families, faith and our culture started a lot earlier, from the 60s onwards I’d say. The tragedy is that the various changes are sold so cunningly and cleverly to the population, dressed up so as to sound attractive, the vast majority are totally unaware of the overall, strategic driving mechanisms. So they keep voting for the same old parties ! Ukip, mainly, changed that with the referendum vote, but can we change it now overall, when the public simply do not see either the causes or the dangers we are being led towards ?

Communism collapsed in the USSR (it is alleged) because the oil price dropped so low that the state was bankrupted and such was the fear of civil unrest that the prevailing order of things had to change.
With foreigners continuing to buy our debt and with quantitive easing being normalised the left-liberal agenda appears unassailable.
I am at a loss of what we can do to challenge their hold on things in additon to what we are already doing.

But let’s not loose sight of the enormous success we have had in securing and winning the EU referendum. We must strive to identify the Achilles Heel of the left-liberal political establishment and strike hard to clean out its Augean stables.